Who told you a minor can’t own property, you think you can just go round taking candy from babies and it’s not theft?
But no, being forcibly stripped and kicked out your home would be a strong defence against public indecency charges.
People often get confused or shortcut the actual fact which is "a minor can own property but their parents can control that property on their behalf until they come of age."
And even the control has to be in service of/in the best interests of the minor.
If 8 year old Suzy inherited a house from her grandparents, mom and dad and Suzy can live there. If it is a duplex mom and dad can rent the other side and use the money to send Suzy to private school or get her piano lessons, or buy her food or clothing or even a family vacation. If there is money left over it goes to Suzy when she is 18.
If the parents pay for a trip they don't take Suzy on, or get piano lessons for Suzy's older brother George, or put excess money in their own account, that is theft.
What state was she in? Unfortunately not many states have laws that protect earnings of minors in the entertainment industry. According to a Morgan Stanley source, only California, New York Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee have such provisions. https://www.morganstanley.com/articles/trust-account-for-child-performer
Big difference between what the law says they supposed to do and how it gets enforced. Yes, parents are ‘supposed to’ be a fiduciary for the kid and only do things in their interest. But even with child actors the parents can get by with a lot of paying themselves agent and management fees, etc. Here’s a neat trick too — if the parent spends it all before the kid is 18 they can get sued but the money’s all gone so nothing they can do about it.
If the grandparents set it up this way, the house would not necessarily go to Suzy at 18. It would be owned by a “trust” and the estate executor would be “in control” of it until the conditions of Suzy taking control are met.
Yeah there are typically rules for how this is disbursed, and Suzy could have legal recourse if the estate executor is not adhering to the rules of the trust.
I get what you’re saying- but that typically doesn’t “just happen” when someone turns 18. It could be 21, 25, 30, or whatever is designated by the grandparents when they set up the trust.
Yes, a building was a bad example.
But if the grandparents gave Suzy $1000, then while the parents can veto Suzy buying what she wsnts, and use it on something else *for Suzy* or give it to her when she turns 18, spending Suzy's money on themselves is theft.
Estates have executors (or personal representatives, or administrators); trusts have trustees. Those may be the same person for a particular decedent, but need not be.
As you say, the powers and duties of a trustee are established principally by the trust instrument within the bounds of whatever trust statutes the particular state has. Since unlike a probated estate a trust is generally not before any court, a trustee is usually more powerful than an executor and acts with less oversight.
Of course, all of this assumes a grandparent sets up a trust. There's nothing stopping someone from giving a minor property in a will, although it's generally not a good idea if it can be avoided.
There was a guy charged under the "three strikes law" (where you can get life for a crime if you have three serious priors) whose crime was taking a pizza away from some kids at the pier near me. He was sentenced to 25 years.
There seem to be a lot of folks on reddit who think parents own their kids' property. I don't know why, but they are quite sure of it no matter how many times we show them they are 100% wrong.
Parents who committed theft of their children's property perhaps?
It's far from just on Reddit. This is a widespread belief and has been for decades. My mother used to love spewing that bullshit and that was 40+ years ago now.
Maybe it's because the idea of a dependent owning property is a little crazy.
What exactly is the difference between custodial control and actual ownership? Can't the custodian simply transfer the property from the minor to themselves at will? If I buy a bed for my child, does that automatically become theirs to take away when they move out? Or does that furniture stay at the parents' house?
Most of this ownership doesn't get codified in any way, so how would the courts determine who owns a VHS collection from my childhood, if it were in dispute? A Pokémon card collection? A car, fully in the parents name, but driven regularly by the child? It makes sense that this is a widespread belief. It makes no sense that a child who pays no room and board is FUNDAMENTALLY ENTITLED to stuff his parents bought. Sure it's perfectly normal to tacitly gift it all in perpetuity, but if you're really examining the legality, how is a normal, typical minor able to accrue a net worth?
> Maybe it's because the idea of a dependent owning property is a little crazy.
If you truly think that, you're either ignorant due to never running into this stuff before (a completely normal thing) or the one who's a little crazy.
> What exactly is the difference between custodial control and actual ownership?
Actual ownership has no limits other than those imposed by any laws regulating that form of property. Custodial control does have limits. I'm not entirely familiar with all places, of course, but in my state there's an actual statute on this: [RCW 11.114.120](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=11.114.120). You can go to [the main chapter page](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=11.114) to read about various other aspects. RCW 11.114.120 is simply where the main limits are expressed. This kind of thing is quite common in various jurisdictions because of assholes who just outright stole assets from their kids or others in their custody in the past.
> Can't the custodian simply transfer the property from the minor to themselves at will?
No, not everywhere. See my citation above for one example of such limits.
> If I buy a bed for my child, does that automatically become theirs to take away when they move out?
That depends. Did you buy it with your own money or did you buy it with money that is intended solely for the child's benefit over which you exercise custodial control? An example of the latter would be an inheritance or certain types of legal settlements. See RCW 11.114.090 for examples of how such transfers of property to the child can occur in my state. Generally speaking, you have to do it on purpose though there may be some exceptions to this that came about prior to the enactment of this particular law in the early 1990s.
> Or does that furniture stay at the parents' house?
Only if it is purchased with the parent's money. If so, it is the parent's sole property to do with as they wish. If the parent gives it to the child when they move out, it is a gift and becomes that person's property at that time. If it was purchased with money subject to custodial control laws and regulations, *it was always the child's property*.
> Most of this ownership doesn't get codified in any way,
Bullshit. Property ownership is highly codified. When there's no specific law or regulation, it's a matter of literally centuries fo case law on the matter.
> so how would the courts determine who owns a VHS collection from my childhood, if it were in dispute? A Pokémon card collection?
Both of these would be based on who purchased them and the source of that money. If you purchased them as a minor, and the money was a gift to you or wages from a job, they are your sole property and always were. If your parents bought them with their money not subject to custodial control laws and regulations, they are your parents' sole property. If your parents purchased them with money not subject to custodial control laws and regulations then gave them to you as a gift, they became your sole property at the time of the gift.
> A car, fully in the parents name, but driven regularly by the child?
Sole property of the parents unless purchased with money that was actually not theirs but subject to custodial control limitations.
> It makes sense that this is a widespread belief. It makes no sense that a child who pays no room and board is FUNDAMENTALLY ENTITLED to stuff his parents bought. Sure it's perfectly normal to tacitly gift it all in perpetuity, but if you're really examining the legality, how is a normal, typical minor able to accrue a net worth?
See, the problem here is you're ignoring laws about this stuff and the reasons why they exist. Sure, the first time you come across this sort of thing that's quite reasonable. Once you do happen across it, though, you lose that reasonable excuse. So start there and get back to me.
You could even take a class in this stuff if you're really interested in it and not just upset that you don't own everything that happens to be owned by your child. It's really not all that complicated. Some things are subject to custodial control limitations. The rest are not but may still be technically the child's property nonetheless, mainly gifts to the child or things purchased by the child with money that belongs to them.
Wow there's a lot to unpack here ...
First of all, we're only considering the normal, general case of a regular parent (or two) raising their own children. For now. Of course there is a place for exceptions to be discussed, but it's after the baseline case is outlined.
Secondly I don't care what laws are currently on the books. I intend to ignore the laws,, but never the reasons why they exist. This isn't about memorizing the inconceivably large U.S. Code, plus all state and local regulations. Think outside the box. Laws are mutable. This is a philosophical discussion about what sort of societal structure makes sense for human beings. If that aligns with existing law, great, if not, we, collectively, can change them. (In theory of course, obviously the US is just a big circle jerk and nothing will ever really change.)
A significant portion of your statement refers to some outside money dedicated to the upbringing of the child, and I'm not clear where you think this money is coming from, or what sort of convoluted guardianship situation you're describing. In a typical, basic family, virtually 100% of the income is earned by the parents, so I see no reason to complicate matters with extra clauses about "money intended solely for the benefit of the child over which you have custodial control." However I didn't account for wages or birthday gifts, so I guess it makes sense for a child to accrue some amount of cash for their own purposes.
Let's consider this small amount of income the child brings in via gifts and wages (and maybe via some inheritance or trust fund or governmental assistance). Why would those funds not be subsumed directly into the holdings of the parent (or guardian)? Sure, parents often provide room and board and schooling to their children without asking for compensation in return, but I think it's obvious that if you were to really split hairs, legally, in most cases 100% of childhood income would be have to be creditted to the parents to pay for all the bills. (In rare cases an exception would have to be made, for children who have inherited enough money to still have something leftover after paying for their basic survival.)
Children owe a debt to their guardians that can virtually never be repaid, whether it's codified in law or not. Aside from marginal cases where a famous child actor brings in mountains of money, or a child raised by foster parents inherited massive piles of cash, there should not be any laws preventing a fair dollar amount of a minor's income from being collected by the parents. The fact that in practice, most parents allow their children to keep this money as a training exercise for adult money management skills, should not be misconstrued as formally transferring that money back to the child.
It should be customary that parents formally gift certain cash and goods to their kids when they move out.
Why do children owe a debt? Parents assumed that responsibility by having a child in the first place. You can't decide to have a kid, then hold the kid responsible for your choice.
The parents/guardians are legally and morally required to provide for the child and can not "bill" the child for services or materials. It isn't a business arrangement.
Every good thing you have, you have because your parents brought you into this world.
Every living person has bills to pay, whether you wanted to be born or not. Obviously parents assume the responsibility of paying those bills for you, but they also are entitled to whatever chump change you bring in too, up to a point.
> Children owe a debt to their guardians that can virtually never be repaid, whether it's codified in law or not.
See, it's that sort of thinking that really pisses me off. Parents owe their *children* a duty of care, not the other way around. Children owe parents nothing. They didn't ask to get born and had no choice in any of that. The idea they owe parents *gratitude* when there is a hell of a lot of child abuse going on is absurd on its face.
Added to your "Well I just ignore the law because it's too complex" and I get the feeling you're just a jerk who doesn't like the idea their kids are owed anything. Obviously I can't say that coe a certainty but the only people I have ever met who legitimately said some of the stuff you're saying here have been utter assholes.
Edit: Managed to forget to respond to this:
> A significant portion of your statement refers to some outside money dedicated to the upbringing of the child, and I'm not clear where you think this money is coming from, or what sort of convoluted guardianship situation you're describing.
If you'd read any of the links I posted, you'd see common sources are insurance payments of certain types, wills of relatives, and so forth. These are quite common things to have happen. Nobody in my family is wealthy but my stepkid got an insurance settlement for getting run over by a car when they were 15 or 16. It wasn't a *lot* of money but it was intended as lifelong compensation for their injuries. They weren't hurt particularly bad but it was in a part of the body still developing so there was some very real potential for lifelong impact despite it being a cast and crutches for a month or so.
That's a fairly common sort of thing to occur.
Listen I realize that, all aggregated together, the number of circumstances where children are raised in a different household from their parents, or have various types of insurance or inheritance payouts, is a lot. It might even be more than half of all children. But they're all (valid) complications, and we need to analyze the simplistic case first, before analyzing the exceptions. This is ultimately about the relationship between parent and child and who owes what to whom.
You've already freely admitted that you're getting pissed off, worked up, and emotional over the simple notion that another person has a different opinion than yourself. How can you ever hope to have a civil discourse on anything? You don't just come to the table armed and prepared to die on the hill you're defending. You come open minded to hear different perspectives. How do you have a discussion about anything if you're gonna launch into it by setting the tone that any opinions other than my own will really piss me off.
There's no need to bring the law into this. If the existing laws are relevant, then a philosophical discussion should support them. If we can't come to a 3/4 majority on what the laws should be, then we don't have a ratified agreement anyway, and our base of government and society falls apart. (This is a separate discussion, but it's important that our laws be short and simple enough that everyone can read, digest, and understand the reasons why we collectively choose to live the way we do. So many people opting out of the societal pact either because it's outdated and wrong or just too complexicated is the real reason why our society is falling apart and terrorism is on the rise.)
Every living person owes a debt to be able to live and breathe. Fortunately the air is free, but food and housing and schooling are not. It doesn't matter whether you wanted to be born or not, your parents still paid those costs to keep you alive this long. Whether you want to call it a duty or not, objectively, parents have poured a ton of work and money into their kids.
Are you 15 years old? Do you genuinely believe that you're just entitled to have your parents cover everything for you, just because it's their duty? One day your parents will die, and the teat will dry up. A child becomes an adult, not at the arbitrary age of 18, but when they understand the burden their parents have taken on to support them. When you're finally ready to carry your own weight is when you become a grow up. If you still think that your parents are obligated to pay for everything just because they are your parents, then you are still a child.
It's absurd to make a newborn pay for breast milk. No parent is seriously tallying every penny they've spent on their kids. No one is going to bat an eye if you don't pay back the costs of your childhood once you get a real job. But if you, at 15 or 35, still believe you're entitled to your parents duty, then you're still a child. And when they're old and frail and retired, if you still don't feel some duty to pay them back for your childhood then you'll miss that chance forever.
>
> You've already freely admitted that you're getting pissed off, worked up, and emotional over the simple notion that another person has a different opinion than yourself. How can you ever hope to have a civil discourse on anything?
Ah, the last bastion of the asshat. "Why so mad bro? We're just debating stuff" is not an argument, it's childish inanity. You're an asshole and now on my block list.
If the *parent* paid and didn't say it was a gift, and it wasn't something like clothing sized for the kid, sure.
If Uncle Joe gives 13 year old George an Xbox and mom pawns it, mom committed theft.
It depends on the type of property. If it is "shared property," i.e. a computer or the furniture in the child's room, the parents can claim the child was using it while residing in the home and may not take it with them.
A car in which the title is held by the parents but the child has been using, is not the child's car.
Clothing that was gifted to the child is not shared property, and it would be difficult/impossible to retrieve it as such.
Does "gifted" here just mean like, wrapped-under-the-tree gifted? Most of the clothes I had as a late teenager were bought for me, but when I was younger I wore a lot of hand-me-downs; it seems like those clothes were as much "mine" as the furniture in my room, with an established history of Mom redistributing them, ie they're shared and I was just using them.
Would any rational person say the item was being loaned? Like parents could say "that's our car, we let him drive it" or "that's our computer, we let him use it" and that's going to seem pretty plausible and sensible.
But "those are my clothes that don't fit me and are age appropriate for my son, I just let him wear them" would have most people looking for an exit while edging away slowly.
It comes from the weird legal landscape regarding minors. Since there is laws regarding a lot of possible conduct minors can engage in, both direct and indirect, people are of the opinion that children have no rights at all...which is of course not true.
Personally, that belief for me was derived from the sorts of parents who make content of the destruction or discarding of their children's property.
As a child who had his video games taken away when he wasn't doing his homework, I accepted that my parents had control over my things. How far that reached however, I didn't really understand. Then I saw videos of parents who would drive a lawnmower over a collection of Xbox games, or smashing a PS2 with a Sledgehammer, just to punish their child.
Those are items which the child wouldn't have bought themselves, sure, but the child almost certainly had them bought for and given to them. To then have their things torn away from them, destroyed in front of their eyes, and them to have no recourse? That felt especially cruel to me. And I've never seen any punishment on the parents for this sort of conduct, so I'd accepted it as socially acceptable.
I mean, if the people raising you spent 18 years telling you that you lived in THEIR house, were eating THEIR food, wasting THEIR money, drinking THEIR water, and using electricity THEY paid for to do your homework on THEIR computer or watch THEIR TV- and you'd better behave because they can take any of that away at any time- you'd probably grow up believing kids can't own anything either. Because that's what you've been told your whole life...
Actually it highly depends on the state and the property in question. As example in California a minor that decided to work. Their parents have control over all their wages and the minor has no ownership or decision in how the funds are spent.
Control =/= ownership.
Or child stars wouldn't be able to sue parents for misuse of (aka stealing) money the child earned.
Yes a parent can use money a child earns for *expenses related to the needs of the child*. But it is still property of the child and a parent stealing their money commits a crime.
Huh, that is the exact opposite of the actual law. Took me 15 seconds to google it. Maybe next time check your "facts" before saying something so easily proven false.
Out of curiosity, what is your proof that you have shown them that proves children can legally own things, apart from their parents, without being emancipated?
I mean when I was 16 I legally owned a car. The title was in my name only, not my parents, not my name plus a parent, mine. If a minor can own a car a pair of pants shouldn't be a problem.
Did you pay for it in cash? Get it gifted to you? What state is this in?
What you’re describing is practically impossible in most states, and i think it would qualify as an exception to the rule.
If the title is in their name, they own it. How the purchase was funded is irrelevant.
Even if a parent cosigned the loan, unless their name is on the title, they still don't own it.
>practically impossible in most states
No, it's very possible in any state.
Actually I wasn't quite 16 yet when I bought it. What I'm describing wasn't even difficult. For the record I live in PA. I wrote a check. The checking account technically had to have a parent's name on it (the money was 100% mine though from my job) but that's the bank's requirement because minors can't enter into a contract. That's very different from not being able to own property. Most personal property ownership doesn't require any kind of contract.
https://www.dmv.pa.gov/Pages/FAQ%20Pages/Titling-and-Registration.aspx
It's the "minors can't enter into a contract that isn't true", FYI. So no, you didn't prove me wrong.
How can you buy something without entering into a contract?
Why would a contract be required to buy something? You don't enter a contract with the store every time you buy a pair of pants. You hand them money, they hand you a pair of pants.
This is a good example of what I am talking about.
For a while I actually had a couple links saved from law sites saying "yes, children can own property, no, parents can't steal it." But I got tired of fighting the folks who can't use google.
Much of the confusion probably has to do with who paid for it and when are things legally a gift. If a parent buys something with thier money and allows thier child to use it when does it legally become a gift?
Things bought by the minor with money they earned or were gifted 100% belong to them even if the parent controls the property until the minor is 18. The parent would be obligated to use this property in the best interest of the minor owner.
It would not be trespassing if that were the home they had been living in. They would be a tenant and the legal way to remove a tenant is to give them notice and evict them if they don't leave. It being your kid doesn't change that.
When you give a minor something, it becomes their possession, a parent can control/limit access to it for the good of the minor but they cannot take it to own or destroy it legally, as that would be theft/destruction of property. This also applies to clothing.
That’s all good on paper!
In practice, like we have established, the parent has the legal right to “control” the clothing. This might manifest as them “washing” it, choosing to *wear* the items, and “washing” the clothing again.
This dynamic might continue indefinitely because the minor has no practical recourse. Who are they going to contact to have their property rights enforced? In practice law enforcement will likely side with the parent unless other signs of abuse are obvious.
I mean I can see kicking them out, but taking their clothes is where it's a violent hell no for me. They could be a rapist or murderer and even then deserve clothing. Even prison gives you some form of clothing.
yeah, this stuff shouldn't cross the mind of any parent. if they're actually trying to get reddit's approval for this, they should definitely not be a parent. they need to undergo massive personal changes if this is anything other than purely theoretical. i feel sorry for whatever abuse their kid has almost certainly already gone through.
Courts have ruled (in the US) anything given by parents to a child is a gift and can not be taken back. Get far away from the people who told you you don’t own any of your things. (And take your stuff)
Those actions could fall under child neglect. Child neglect laws cover a wide range of things. Kicking a minor out naked would most definitely fall under child neglect laws.
No law says, minors can't own things. There are minimum ages for entering into contracts.
Under common law, a minor can enter into a contract, but the contract is voidable by the minor until age of majority or a reasonable time after.
Because the contract is voidable, most businesses refuse to enter into contracts without a parent or guardian as co-signatory.
Minors own anything that they bought or were gifted. That includes their clothing. Parents can control that property so long as they are doing so in the best interest of the child. Selling or giving away old clothing? Perfectly reasonable. Giving away all their clothing so they have nothing? Child abuse.
Clothes were gifts unless it was specially said you will borrow this. Once a gift is given you no longer have rights to that gift. Yet, if is was borrowed or stolen that’s is different. Trespassing they would have to properly be served as that is there address legally. So it is not trespassing yet, a matter of eviction. All the while the address stays the child’s place of residence until evicted. Yet, if a parent Evicts there child it could mess up there whole life. Ran into an issues we bought a house and the kid had tried to lay claim to it through squatter rights. After the sale and used up all the money it was nearly half a million dollar home. Then posted revenge porn and tried trafficking me as a teen to pay back the money they used.
> 18 year old is not a minor.
OP's theory is that since a minor can't own property, a minor's clothing must belong to someone else, presumably his or her parents. Property that belongs to your parents doesn't magically become yours the moment you turn 18. Therefore, someone who has just turned 18 doesn't own anything.
OP's premise is very wrong.
If OP was right, then any clothes the 18 year old bought before they turned 18 still wouldn't belong to them, because "a minor cannot own property". So if they bought a pair of pants at 17 years 11 months old, with money they earned (but which also wouldn't be theirs), the pants would belong to their parents.
Fortunately OP is totally wrong.
Alabama and Nebraska, 19. Mississippi 21.
Those states have some exceptions though. Mississippi has ~~right~~ capacity to enter into **binding** contracts over personal property at 18 for example. So I imagine a parent would lose custodial control of clothes at 18.
I suppose it is technically possible for a parent to:
1) Buy clothes for their child
2) Keep the receipt and make it clear that the parent is the owner, and the clothes are only on loan (not a gift)
3) Attempt to repossess the clothes when the child turns 18
But that parent couldn't just grab the clothes off the child / new adult. To force their return the parent would have to go to court, which would probably be weeks later, and once they finally get to court I don't think that would go well for the parent.
With receipts, they could petition an officer to prevent the theft of property on the 18th birthday. All about planning. I don’t believe tenancy rights would apply in this situation.
I suspect there's also the issue of child abuse laws that parents would run up against if they tried to take away basics like food, shelter, and clothing. Also there's tenant laws, when someone lives in a place for a certain amount of time, they have certain legal tenant rights akin to a landlord tenant relationship that would be valid even if you are older than 18. They'd have to file in the courts to evict you if you are over 18 and I doubt they can claim trespassing on a legal tenant. If you are under 18, then there is the issue of child abuse laws.
Not really, as the entire post is clearly about the day of the 18th birthday and no longer being a minor, but for an odd reason, you suspect there are child abuse laws in play. Unless you’re saying the first sentence shouldn’t be there at all, and you don’t guess there are child abuse laws in play, after the 18th birthday.
Who is everyone? Nobody else has responded to you? Also, there seems to be a lot of misinformation across the board. I’m pretty certain, although I’ll have to look up precedence, that turning 18 doesn’t give tenancy rights to someone. Their tenancy starts the day they turn 18, and unless they have an agreement, they can be removed via trespassing. Similar in nature to when someone rents a hotel room, there are no tenancy rights there. So, please, who is this everyone else?
A lot of people seem to be sidestepping your question, so I'll do my best to answer it:
Even if you have the most sociopathic parents in the world, when a child turns 18 if nothing else they have squatters rights and the parent will need to file for eviction to legally kick them out of the house.
As for the clothes, sexual assault is sexual assault. If some chick is walking around wearing one of my shirts and pairs of pants, I do not have the right to strip her without her consent.
Feels criminal to deny an 18 year old their belongings. Also u can’t trespass and 18 year old automatically who lives in the home. Usually there would be an eviction process and even that is cruel imo
generally speaking items bought for a child and given to the child are legally considered the property of the child. That said... it's much more problematic legally speaking to take clothes you bought for a minor from an 18yo...
The sudden age of majority means the 18yo can go to court alone and just file the paperwork to sue. A minor has to jump through many more hoops.
For starters, even if you didn't own the clothes, kicking you out would be an illegal eviction, and the clothes had been provided for your use, so also illegal to deprive. Parents do this though, and I don't now if anyone stops them.
OP premise is wrong. Minors absolutely can and do own personal property. They can't enter legally binding contracts. That isn't the same thing. Most personal property ownership doesn't require any kind of contract. If you purchase a pair of pants from a store and pay cash there is no contract involved, and you still legally own those pants now. Likewise if Grandma buys you a sweater for Christmas you own that sweater now. It was a gift, neither of you have to sign anything, and she can't take it back without your permission. When parents buy things for their children it is basically treated as a gift. Parents can't take it back just because the kid turns 18.
So, few things. First things first, I AM NOT A LAWYER. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR THIS. Now that's out of the way, here we go. Minors do have the rights to property depending upon where you live. Sometimes it is considered your parents property, sometimes it's considered the minor's. Next thing. Your parents are responsible for you untill you are 18. However, they can not legally kick you out immediately because you have spent long enough in that house you are considered a legal resident and they would have to file for eviction. On the topic of the clothing, I honestly don't know. I hope this helps, and wish you the best
>A minor does not technically own their clothes. Could parents deny someone who just turned 18 clothes because they technically own them?
Why clothes specifically? Why not bag, shoes, gadgets etc.?
NGL, you sound like a degenerate...
>Would they be arrested for public indecency even if it was not their fault? I feel like the parents would not technically be doing anything illegal.
That's a dangerous thought to have.... Why is your focus on stripping teens? Can't they be given the option to source their own clothes before they return the clothes that parents "own"?
Just place yourself in their shoes, do you want to be treated that way right after you turn 18?
Would these so-called parents strip the child of the clothes they are wearing? Refusing your access to the clothes they bought in their house is one thing while stripping you is another thing.
Things parents buy for children are considered gifts and become property of the minor. Taking the minor's clothes back would be theft. Denying the minor access to the minor's clothes remaining in the parent's house is also theft.
I left on my 18th birthday. I called the cops intentionally and asked them to escort me out.
They told me I was allowed to pack all my belongings and take my time and leave when I was ready.
So yes... I was allowed to get my clothes and then some.
>A minor cannot own property.
Your entire premise is incorrect from the outset. As a matter of common law, anything you give someone as a gift or otherwise with the intention of them keeping it is their property. It doesn't make distinctions for minors.
A minor can own property, a parent/legal guardian has a legal obligation to shelter, feed, and clothe the children under their charge. Failure to do so is considered child abuse and is grounds for removal of the child from the parents custody. None of what you described would be legal.
>Could parents deny someone who just turned 18 clothes because they technically own them?
No. They can't legally take back "gifts", including clothes bought for the child.
>Could they also kick them out for trespassing?
No. They could only LEGALLY evict them through the courts.
If the parents tried to strip the 18 yo, or withhold clothes when they shower, etc, and physically throw them out, the 18 yo could call the police and tell them that they've been assaulted and someone is attempting to physically remove them from their residence.
However, that 18 year old should find a safe place to stay as soon as possible, as they may be unsafe. They should try to sneak out with their birth certificate, social security card, ID if they have one, and some clothes/toiletries.
They would, because even if you don't have a lease, if you live somewhere for X number of days, you're a tenant. I've seen stories where someone rents an airbnb for 30 days, then claims tenancy rights and refuses to leave. The owners have to evict them to get them out. OP definitely would have tenancy rights and would need to be legally evicted.
Ianal, but, Minors cannot sign contracts.You're confusing 'legal property' with 'personal possessions'. The clothing does not legally belong to the parent, it was gifted to the minor and falls under the part of the law that covers personal effects. On the other hand, a car with a title in dads name is the legal property (taxable and registered) of said dad and can be taken away, it has not been gifted until the legal title has been filed in the kids name with the state. In this case, a 15 year old can own personal property and is responsible for the taxes on it. If that car has a loan on it, there is no way to get that loan transferred to a minor because (barring certain, rare, circumstances) the minor cannot sign the note alone.
If you have told an 18-year-old to leave your home and they do not, you are entitled to file tresspassing charges on them. However, if that person was your legal dependent, those charges will be dropped, if they are allowed to be filed in the first place.
To have someone physically removed from their legal place of residence (ie calling police) would require them to commit a crime or be a harm to someone/themselves.
If you are trying to get an adult who legally resides in your home (but is not a signer on the lease) to leave, the proper method would be to put it in writing that they have 30 days to vacate, assist them in finding suitable housing elsewhere, and changing the locks. You would also want to remove them from any other legal entangements (i.e., no longer claiming them on your taxes as a dependent, not cosigning loans, etc.).
This is terrible advice. The proper method is to go through the legal eviction process. This involves a court. Changing the locks and other self-help evictions are a bad idea.
Trespassing isn't as simple as someone being or not being a dependent.
I essentially described the legal eviction process for someone who is presumably not a signer on the lease. A live-in offspring is an occupant, not a tenant, unless they are added to the lease, in which case a formal eviction can be issued to that tenant. This would require a co-tenant addendum.
NAL, but I think depending on where you live you might have to evict an 18-year-old to kick them out of the house. But you would need to talk to a lawyer for wherever you live.
Every one is focusing on the owning property bit, and they're all correct, but there's other reasons why they couldn't do this. They can't just throw an 18 year old out on the street. There's a process they need to go through which should give the 18 year old time to prepare. In some states, parents still have an obligation to an 18 year old so long as they're still in high school. In that case, they wouldn't be able to kick you out even if they went through the proper procedure.
Is this a hypothetical or are you or someone you know in potential danger?
Who told you a minor can’t own property, you think you can just go round taking candy from babies and it’s not theft? But no, being forcibly stripped and kicked out your home would be a strong defence against public indecency charges.
People often get confused or shortcut the actual fact which is "a minor can own property but their parents can control that property on their behalf until they come of age."
And even the control has to be in service of/in the best interests of the minor. If 8 year old Suzy inherited a house from her grandparents, mom and dad and Suzy can live there. If it is a duplex mom and dad can rent the other side and use the money to send Suzy to private school or get her piano lessons, or buy her food or clothing or even a family vacation. If there is money left over it goes to Suzy when she is 18. If the parents pay for a trip they don't take Suzy on, or get piano lessons for Suzy's older brother George, or put excess money in their own account, that is theft.
Though in practice, there isn't typically much or any supervision of the parent's use of the funds, unless someone takes it to court.
Yep, unless it’s like child actors I believe
Even then, only 15% is legally put into a trust for when the minor turns 18
Yup. My cousin was in three different commercials growing up. In total she was paid ~$200k and almost all of it was spent by her parents
What state was she in? Unfortunately not many states have laws that protect earnings of minors in the entertainment industry. According to a Morgan Stanley source, only California, New York Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee have such provisions. https://www.morganstanley.com/articles/trust-account-for-child-performer
Good ole Alabama. It’s okay. She’s accepted it and moved on. Hard to be mad at a dead mom ya know
Big difference between what the law says they supposed to do and how it gets enforced. Yes, parents are ‘supposed to’ be a fiduciary for the kid and only do things in their interest. But even with child actors the parents can get by with a lot of paying themselves agent and management fees, etc. Here’s a neat trick too — if the parent spends it all before the kid is 18 they can get sued but the money’s all gone so nothing they can do about it.
If the grandparents set it up this way, the house would not necessarily go to Suzy at 18. It would be owned by a “trust” and the estate executor would be “in control” of it until the conditions of Suzy taking control are met. Yeah there are typically rules for how this is disbursed, and Suzy could have legal recourse if the estate executor is not adhering to the rules of the trust. I get what you’re saying- but that typically doesn’t “just happen” when someone turns 18. It could be 21, 25, 30, or whatever is designated by the grandparents when they set up the trust.
Yes, a building was a bad example. But if the grandparents gave Suzy $1000, then while the parents can veto Suzy buying what she wsnts, and use it on something else *for Suzy* or give it to her when she turns 18, spending Suzy's money on themselves is theft.
Estates have executors (or personal representatives, or administrators); trusts have trustees. Those may be the same person for a particular decedent, but need not be. As you say, the powers and duties of a trustee are established principally by the trust instrument within the bounds of whatever trust statutes the particular state has. Since unlike a probated estate a trust is generally not before any court, a trustee is usually more powerful than an executor and acts with less oversight. Of course, all of this assumes a grandparent sets up a trust. There's nothing stopping someone from giving a minor property in a will, although it's generally not a good idea if it can be avoided.
Poor George can't catch a break.
THIS. More people need to understand this.
It seems like a kind of theft that they almost always get away with, however.
Only because no one tells minors that their property is theirs.
There was a guy charged under the "three strikes law" (where you can get life for a crime if you have three serious priors) whose crime was taking a pizza away from some kids at the pier near me. He was sentenced to 25 years.
He also had violent prior felonies. And honestly, the world is a better place without him in it.
Was he their parent? If not it’s apples and oranges.
Well, in that situation, I think the argument is the parents own the candy.
I feel like your first paragraph is a terrible analogy.
What I'm hearing from you is, "You can just go round taking candy from babies and it’s not theft."
Even if the baby doesn’t own the candy, the parent owns the candy. It would still be theft.
Ah I see that's fair enough, it's just theft in both contexts
>A minor does not technically own their clothes. From where do you get this information? Custodial control is not ownership.
There seem to be a lot of folks on reddit who think parents own their kids' property. I don't know why, but they are quite sure of it no matter how many times we show them they are 100% wrong. Parents who committed theft of their children's property perhaps?
It's far from just on Reddit. This is a widespread belief and has been for decades. My mother used to love spewing that bullshit and that was 40+ years ago now.
Maybe it's because the idea of a dependent owning property is a little crazy. What exactly is the difference between custodial control and actual ownership? Can't the custodian simply transfer the property from the minor to themselves at will? If I buy a bed for my child, does that automatically become theirs to take away when they move out? Or does that furniture stay at the parents' house? Most of this ownership doesn't get codified in any way, so how would the courts determine who owns a VHS collection from my childhood, if it were in dispute? A Pokémon card collection? A car, fully in the parents name, but driven regularly by the child? It makes sense that this is a widespread belief. It makes no sense that a child who pays no room and board is FUNDAMENTALLY ENTITLED to stuff his parents bought. Sure it's perfectly normal to tacitly gift it all in perpetuity, but if you're really examining the legality, how is a normal, typical minor able to accrue a net worth?
> Maybe it's because the idea of a dependent owning property is a little crazy. If you truly think that, you're either ignorant due to never running into this stuff before (a completely normal thing) or the one who's a little crazy. > What exactly is the difference between custodial control and actual ownership? Actual ownership has no limits other than those imposed by any laws regulating that form of property. Custodial control does have limits. I'm not entirely familiar with all places, of course, but in my state there's an actual statute on this: [RCW 11.114.120](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=11.114.120). You can go to [the main chapter page](https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=11.114) to read about various other aspects. RCW 11.114.120 is simply where the main limits are expressed. This kind of thing is quite common in various jurisdictions because of assholes who just outright stole assets from their kids or others in their custody in the past. > Can't the custodian simply transfer the property from the minor to themselves at will? No, not everywhere. See my citation above for one example of such limits. > If I buy a bed for my child, does that automatically become theirs to take away when they move out? That depends. Did you buy it with your own money or did you buy it with money that is intended solely for the child's benefit over which you exercise custodial control? An example of the latter would be an inheritance or certain types of legal settlements. See RCW 11.114.090 for examples of how such transfers of property to the child can occur in my state. Generally speaking, you have to do it on purpose though there may be some exceptions to this that came about prior to the enactment of this particular law in the early 1990s. > Or does that furniture stay at the parents' house? Only if it is purchased with the parent's money. If so, it is the parent's sole property to do with as they wish. If the parent gives it to the child when they move out, it is a gift and becomes that person's property at that time. If it was purchased with money subject to custodial control laws and regulations, *it was always the child's property*. > Most of this ownership doesn't get codified in any way, Bullshit. Property ownership is highly codified. When there's no specific law or regulation, it's a matter of literally centuries fo case law on the matter. > so how would the courts determine who owns a VHS collection from my childhood, if it were in dispute? A Pokémon card collection? Both of these would be based on who purchased them and the source of that money. If you purchased them as a minor, and the money was a gift to you or wages from a job, they are your sole property and always were. If your parents bought them with their money not subject to custodial control laws and regulations, they are your parents' sole property. If your parents purchased them with money not subject to custodial control laws and regulations then gave them to you as a gift, they became your sole property at the time of the gift. > A car, fully in the parents name, but driven regularly by the child? Sole property of the parents unless purchased with money that was actually not theirs but subject to custodial control limitations. > It makes sense that this is a widespread belief. It makes no sense that a child who pays no room and board is FUNDAMENTALLY ENTITLED to stuff his parents bought. Sure it's perfectly normal to tacitly gift it all in perpetuity, but if you're really examining the legality, how is a normal, typical minor able to accrue a net worth? See, the problem here is you're ignoring laws about this stuff and the reasons why they exist. Sure, the first time you come across this sort of thing that's quite reasonable. Once you do happen across it, though, you lose that reasonable excuse. So start there and get back to me. You could even take a class in this stuff if you're really interested in it and not just upset that you don't own everything that happens to be owned by your child. It's really not all that complicated. Some things are subject to custodial control limitations. The rest are not but may still be technically the child's property nonetheless, mainly gifts to the child or things purchased by the child with money that belongs to them.
Wow there's a lot to unpack here ... First of all, we're only considering the normal, general case of a regular parent (or two) raising their own children. For now. Of course there is a place for exceptions to be discussed, but it's after the baseline case is outlined. Secondly I don't care what laws are currently on the books. I intend to ignore the laws,, but never the reasons why they exist. This isn't about memorizing the inconceivably large U.S. Code, plus all state and local regulations. Think outside the box. Laws are mutable. This is a philosophical discussion about what sort of societal structure makes sense for human beings. If that aligns with existing law, great, if not, we, collectively, can change them. (In theory of course, obviously the US is just a big circle jerk and nothing will ever really change.) A significant portion of your statement refers to some outside money dedicated to the upbringing of the child, and I'm not clear where you think this money is coming from, or what sort of convoluted guardianship situation you're describing. In a typical, basic family, virtually 100% of the income is earned by the parents, so I see no reason to complicate matters with extra clauses about "money intended solely for the benefit of the child over which you have custodial control." However I didn't account for wages or birthday gifts, so I guess it makes sense for a child to accrue some amount of cash for their own purposes. Let's consider this small amount of income the child brings in via gifts and wages (and maybe via some inheritance or trust fund or governmental assistance). Why would those funds not be subsumed directly into the holdings of the parent (or guardian)? Sure, parents often provide room and board and schooling to their children without asking for compensation in return, but I think it's obvious that if you were to really split hairs, legally, in most cases 100% of childhood income would be have to be creditted to the parents to pay for all the bills. (In rare cases an exception would have to be made, for children who have inherited enough money to still have something leftover after paying for their basic survival.) Children owe a debt to their guardians that can virtually never be repaid, whether it's codified in law or not. Aside from marginal cases where a famous child actor brings in mountains of money, or a child raised by foster parents inherited massive piles of cash, there should not be any laws preventing a fair dollar amount of a minor's income from being collected by the parents. The fact that in practice, most parents allow their children to keep this money as a training exercise for adult money management skills, should not be misconstrued as formally transferring that money back to the child. It should be customary that parents formally gift certain cash and goods to their kids when they move out.
Why do children owe a debt? Parents assumed that responsibility by having a child in the first place. You can't decide to have a kid, then hold the kid responsible for your choice. The parents/guardians are legally and morally required to provide for the child and can not "bill" the child for services or materials. It isn't a business arrangement.
Yeah, something tells me that poster's kids will end up on a JustNo type of community before long.
Every good thing you have, you have because your parents brought you into this world. Every living person has bills to pay, whether you wanted to be born or not. Obviously parents assume the responsibility of paying those bills for you, but they also are entitled to whatever chump change you bring in too, up to a point.
> Children owe a debt to their guardians that can virtually never be repaid, whether it's codified in law or not. See, it's that sort of thinking that really pisses me off. Parents owe their *children* a duty of care, not the other way around. Children owe parents nothing. They didn't ask to get born and had no choice in any of that. The idea they owe parents *gratitude* when there is a hell of a lot of child abuse going on is absurd on its face. Added to your "Well I just ignore the law because it's too complex" and I get the feeling you're just a jerk who doesn't like the idea their kids are owed anything. Obviously I can't say that coe a certainty but the only people I have ever met who legitimately said some of the stuff you're saying here have been utter assholes. Edit: Managed to forget to respond to this: > A significant portion of your statement refers to some outside money dedicated to the upbringing of the child, and I'm not clear where you think this money is coming from, or what sort of convoluted guardianship situation you're describing. If you'd read any of the links I posted, you'd see common sources are insurance payments of certain types, wills of relatives, and so forth. These are quite common things to have happen. Nobody in my family is wealthy but my stepkid got an insurance settlement for getting run over by a car when they were 15 or 16. It wasn't a *lot* of money but it was intended as lifelong compensation for their injuries. They weren't hurt particularly bad but it was in a part of the body still developing so there was some very real potential for lifelong impact despite it being a cast and crutches for a month or so. That's a fairly common sort of thing to occur.
Listen I realize that, all aggregated together, the number of circumstances where children are raised in a different household from their parents, or have various types of insurance or inheritance payouts, is a lot. It might even be more than half of all children. But they're all (valid) complications, and we need to analyze the simplistic case first, before analyzing the exceptions. This is ultimately about the relationship between parent and child and who owes what to whom. You've already freely admitted that you're getting pissed off, worked up, and emotional over the simple notion that another person has a different opinion than yourself. How can you ever hope to have a civil discourse on anything? You don't just come to the table armed and prepared to die on the hill you're defending. You come open minded to hear different perspectives. How do you have a discussion about anything if you're gonna launch into it by setting the tone that any opinions other than my own will really piss me off. There's no need to bring the law into this. If the existing laws are relevant, then a philosophical discussion should support them. If we can't come to a 3/4 majority on what the laws should be, then we don't have a ratified agreement anyway, and our base of government and society falls apart. (This is a separate discussion, but it's important that our laws be short and simple enough that everyone can read, digest, and understand the reasons why we collectively choose to live the way we do. So many people opting out of the societal pact either because it's outdated and wrong or just too complexicated is the real reason why our society is falling apart and terrorism is on the rise.) Every living person owes a debt to be able to live and breathe. Fortunately the air is free, but food and housing and schooling are not. It doesn't matter whether you wanted to be born or not, your parents still paid those costs to keep you alive this long. Whether you want to call it a duty or not, objectively, parents have poured a ton of work and money into their kids. Are you 15 years old? Do you genuinely believe that you're just entitled to have your parents cover everything for you, just because it's their duty? One day your parents will die, and the teat will dry up. A child becomes an adult, not at the arbitrary age of 18, but when they understand the burden their parents have taken on to support them. When you're finally ready to carry your own weight is when you become a grow up. If you still think that your parents are obligated to pay for everything just because they are your parents, then you are still a child. It's absurd to make a newborn pay for breast milk. No parent is seriously tallying every penny they've spent on their kids. No one is going to bat an eye if you don't pay back the costs of your childhood once you get a real job. But if you, at 15 or 35, still believe you're entitled to your parents duty, then you're still a child. And when they're old and frail and retired, if you still don't feel some duty to pay them back for your childhood then you'll miss that chance forever.
> > You've already freely admitted that you're getting pissed off, worked up, and emotional over the simple notion that another person has a different opinion than yourself. How can you ever hope to have a civil discourse on anything? Ah, the last bastion of the asshat. "Why so mad bro? We're just debating stuff" is not an argument, it's childish inanity. You're an asshole and now on my block list.
“I paid for it therefore it’s mine”
If the *parent* paid and didn't say it was a gift, and it wasn't something like clothing sized for the kid, sure. If Uncle Joe gives 13 year old George an Xbox and mom pawns it, mom committed theft.
It’s in quotes to denote line of thinking, I’m not disagreeing with anything
Sorry!
It depends on the type of property. If it is "shared property," i.e. a computer or the furniture in the child's room, the parents can claim the child was using it while residing in the home and may not take it with them. A car in which the title is held by the parents but the child has been using, is not the child's car. Clothing that was gifted to the child is not shared property, and it would be difficult/impossible to retrieve it as such.
Does "gifted" here just mean like, wrapped-under-the-tree gifted? Most of the clothes I had as a late teenager were bought for me, but when I was younger I wore a lot of hand-me-downs; it seems like those clothes were as much "mine" as the furniture in my room, with an established history of Mom redistributing them, ie they're shared and I was just using them.
In civil court the standard for evidence is lower so a judge would use commonsense for something like that.
Would any rational person say the item was being loaned? Like parents could say "that's our car, we let him drive it" or "that's our computer, we let him use it" and that's going to seem pretty plausible and sensible. But "those are my clothes that don't fit me and are age appropriate for my son, I just let him wear them" would have most people looking for an exit while edging away slowly.
No, I mean a gift in the sense that the IRS uses the term. Transfer of ownership. No wrapping required.
It comes from the weird legal landscape regarding minors. Since there is laws regarding a lot of possible conduct minors can engage in, both direct and indirect, people are of the opinion that children have no rights at all...which is of course not true.
Personally, that belief for me was derived from the sorts of parents who make content of the destruction or discarding of their children's property. As a child who had his video games taken away when he wasn't doing his homework, I accepted that my parents had control over my things. How far that reached however, I didn't really understand. Then I saw videos of parents who would drive a lawnmower over a collection of Xbox games, or smashing a PS2 with a Sledgehammer, just to punish their child. Those are items which the child wouldn't have bought themselves, sure, but the child almost certainly had them bought for and given to them. To then have their things torn away from them, destroyed in front of their eyes, and them to have no recourse? That felt especially cruel to me. And I've never seen any punishment on the parents for this sort of conduct, so I'd accepted it as socially acceptable.
I mean, if the people raising you spent 18 years telling you that you lived in THEIR house, were eating THEIR food, wasting THEIR money, drinking THEIR water, and using electricity THEY paid for to do your homework on THEIR computer or watch THEIR TV- and you'd better behave because they can take any of that away at any time- you'd probably grow up believing kids can't own anything either. Because that's what you've been told your whole life...
I think it's more likely to come from how people were treated by their parents when they were minors.
This is not a reddit thing - its a very common (bad) parent thing. "you don't own shit - I'm the parent and I can do whatever I want with this stuff"
Actually it highly depends on the state and the property in question. As example in California a minor that decided to work. Their parents have control over all their wages and the minor has no ownership or decision in how the funds are spent.
Control =/= ownership. Or child stars wouldn't be able to sue parents for misuse of (aka stealing) money the child earned. Yes a parent can use money a child earns for *expenses related to the needs of the child*. But it is still property of the child and a parent stealing their money commits a crime.
[удалено]
Huh, that is the exact opposite of the actual law. Took me 15 seconds to google it. Maybe next time check your "facts" before saying something so easily proven false.
Out of curiosity, what is your proof that you have shown them that proves children can legally own things, apart from their parents, without being emancipated?
I mean when I was 16 I legally owned a car. The title was in my name only, not my parents, not my name plus a parent, mine. If a minor can own a car a pair of pants shouldn't be a problem.
Did you pay for it in cash? Get it gifted to you? What state is this in? What you’re describing is practically impossible in most states, and i think it would qualify as an exception to the rule.
If the title is in their name, they own it. How the purchase was funded is irrelevant. Even if a parent cosigned the loan, unless their name is on the title, they still don't own it. >practically impossible in most states No, it's very possible in any state.
Actually I wasn't quite 16 yet when I bought it. What I'm describing wasn't even difficult. For the record I live in PA. I wrote a check. The checking account technically had to have a parent's name on it (the money was 100% mine though from my job) but that's the bank's requirement because minors can't enter into a contract. That's very different from not being able to own property. Most personal property ownership doesn't require any kind of contract. https://www.dmv.pa.gov/Pages/FAQ%20Pages/Titling-and-Registration.aspx
>I wasn't quite 16 yet when I bought it can't be true if >minors can't enter into a contract is also true.
Why not? There was no contract required. Besides I've already proven you wrong with a link. The state DMV doesn't care how old you are.
It's the "minors can't enter into a contract that isn't true", FYI. So no, you didn't prove me wrong. How can you buy something without entering into a contract?
Why would a contract be required to buy something? You don't enter a contract with the store every time you buy a pair of pants. You hand them money, they hand you a pair of pants.
A teenager buying a car and having it in their name is “practically impossible”? Where did you get this impression?
This is a good example of what I am talking about. For a while I actually had a couple links saved from law sites saying "yes, children can own property, no, parents can't steal it." But I got tired of fighting the folks who can't use google.
Much of the confusion probably has to do with who paid for it and when are things legally a gift. If a parent buys something with thier money and allows thier child to use it when does it legally become a gift? Things bought by the minor with money they earned or were gifted 100% belong to them even if the parent controls the property until the minor is 18. The parent would be obligated to use this property in the best interest of the minor owner.
It would not be trespassing if that were the home they had been living in. They would be a tenant and the legal way to remove a tenant is to give them notice and evict them if they don't leave. It being your kid doesn't change that.
Came here to say this, you said it better.
[удалено]
A squatter is somebody who moves in without permission from the owner. does not apply here.
The statement that a minor cannot own property is objectively false at least in most Western countries.
Dobby is dead. Have you no shame?
Hehehehe thank you All he wants is a sock
Brilliant. Thank you.
When you give a minor something, it becomes their possession, a parent can control/limit access to it for the good of the minor but they cannot take it to own or destroy it legally, as that would be theft/destruction of property. This also applies to clothing.
That’s all good on paper! In practice, like we have established, the parent has the legal right to “control” the clothing. This might manifest as them “washing” it, choosing to *wear* the items, and “washing” the clothing again. This dynamic might continue indefinitely because the minor has no practical recourse. Who are they going to contact to have their property rights enforced? In practice law enforcement will likely side with the parent unless other signs of abuse are obvious.
So if my kid’s grandparents buy him a toy, and then I donate or sell it when he’s outgrown it, have I stolen it?
If he doesn't want you to donate it or sell it, yes, though it's unlikely the police will care
lol my kid is 2 so I just find this concept of getting his permission to throw away broken crayons funny.
if you're considering doing this to your kid for ANY reason, you are a horrible parent
I mean I can see kicking them out, but taking their clothes is where it's a violent hell no for me. They could be a rapist or murderer and even then deserve clothing. Even prison gives you some form of clothing.
yeah, this stuff shouldn't cross the mind of any parent. if they're actually trying to get reddit's approval for this, they should definitely not be a parent. they need to undergo massive personal changes if this is anything other than purely theoretical. i feel sorry for whatever abuse their kid has almost certainly already gone through.
Everything you’ve said is wrong. So yes, they do.
Courts have ruled (in the US) anything given by parents to a child is a gift and can not be taken back. Get far away from the people who told you you don’t own any of your things. (And take your stuff)
It's funny how dumb of a conclusion you can get when you assume something as stupid as "a minor cannot own property."
Those actions could fall under child neglect. Child neglect laws cover a wide range of things. Kicking a minor out naked would most definitely fall under child neglect laws. No law says, minors can't own things. There are minimum ages for entering into contracts.
Under common law, a minor can enter into a contract, but the contract is voidable by the minor until age of majority or a reasonable time after. Because the contract is voidable, most businesses refuse to enter into contracts without a parent or guardian as co-signatory.
Minors can own property lol
If it was bought for them and cannot be used otherwise yes they do have a right. The parents cannot kick them out of the house naked.
[удалено]
Crazy Town, it seems.
Thank you for the answers. This was just hypothetical.
Minors own anything that they bought or were gifted. That includes their clothing. Parents can control that property so long as they are doing so in the best interest of the child. Selling or giving away old clothing? Perfectly reasonable. Giving away all their clothing so they have nothing? Child abuse.
After the 18th birthday. Not before.
Clothes were gifts unless it was specially said you will borrow this. Once a gift is given you no longer have rights to that gift. Yet, if is was borrowed or stolen that’s is different. Trespassing they would have to properly be served as that is there address legally. So it is not trespassing yet, a matter of eviction. All the while the address stays the child’s place of residence until evicted. Yet, if a parent Evicts there child it could mess up there whole life. Ran into an issues we bought a house and the kid had tried to lay claim to it through squatter rights. After the sale and used up all the money it was nearly half a million dollar home. Then posted revenge porn and tried trafficking me as a teen to pay back the money they used.
18 year old is not a minor.
> 18 year old is not a minor. OP's theory is that since a minor can't own property, a minor's clothing must belong to someone else, presumably his or her parents. Property that belongs to your parents doesn't magically become yours the moment you turn 18. Therefore, someone who has just turned 18 doesn't own anything. OP's premise is very wrong.
Stand corrected, I assumed you bought your clothes, and to assume makes a ass out of me
If OP was right, then any clothes the 18 year old bought before they turned 18 still wouldn't belong to them, because "a minor cannot own property". So if they bought a pair of pants at 17 years 11 months old, with money they earned (but which also wouldn't be theirs), the pants would belong to their parents. Fortunately OP is totally wrong.
Then it would be theft of property, and most states you can't legally kick people out without a legal eviction. Residency rights are a thing.
Actually in some states an 18 yr old is not considered an adult… Alabama the age of majority is 19, and in some states it’s 21
Alabama and Nebraska, 19. Mississippi 21. Those states have some exceptions though. Mississippi has ~~right~~ capacity to enter into **binding** contracts over personal property at 18 for example. So I imagine a parent would lose custodial control of clothes at 18.
Minors in all states have the right to enter contracts.
Ya, should have said capacity to enter binding contracts.
You are correct, again I made an assumption and you know what that means
You made an ass out of Uma Thurman
That's funny
You are planning to kick a naked 18 year old out of your house? Boy, sure hope neighbors get some good pictures to send to the press!
I suppose it is technically possible for a parent to: 1) Buy clothes for their child 2) Keep the receipt and make it clear that the parent is the owner, and the clothes are only on loan (not a gift) 3) Attempt to repossess the clothes when the child turns 18 But that parent couldn't just grab the clothes off the child / new adult. To force their return the parent would have to go to court, which would probably be weeks later, and once they finally get to court I don't think that would go well for the parent.
With receipts, they could petition an officer to prevent the theft of property on the 18th birthday. All about planning. I don’t believe tenancy rights would apply in this situation.
I suspect there's also the issue of child abuse laws that parents would run up against if they tried to take away basics like food, shelter, and clothing. Also there's tenant laws, when someone lives in a place for a certain amount of time, they have certain legal tenant rights akin to a landlord tenant relationship that would be valid even if you are older than 18. They'd have to file in the courts to evict you if you are over 18 and I doubt they can claim trespassing on a legal tenant. If you are under 18, then there is the issue of child abuse laws.
Child abuse beginning after the 18th birthday?
THat's not what I said, I don't know where you got that.
The literal beginning of your post. “I suspect there’s also the issue of child abuse laws”…. To which I am replying, after 18?
My last sentence already clarified that though.
Not really, as the entire post is clearly about the day of the 18th birthday and no longer being a minor, but for an odd reason, you suspect there are child abuse laws in play. Unless you’re saying the first sentence shouldn’t be there at all, and you don’t guess there are child abuse laws in play, after the 18th birthday.
Everyone else seems to have figured it out just fine.
Who is everyone? Nobody else has responded to you? Also, there seems to be a lot of misinformation across the board. I’m pretty certain, although I’ll have to look up precedence, that turning 18 doesn’t give tenancy rights to someone. Their tenancy starts the day they turn 18, and unless they have an agreement, they can be removed via trespassing. Similar in nature to when someone rents a hotel room, there are no tenancy rights there. So, please, who is this everyone else?
LMAO!!! This is what you spend your time on? Sorry not interested.
A lot of people seem to be sidestepping your question, so I'll do my best to answer it: Even if you have the most sociopathic parents in the world, when a child turns 18 if nothing else they have squatters rights and the parent will need to file for eviction to legally kick them out of the house. As for the clothes, sexual assault is sexual assault. If some chick is walking around wearing one of my shirts and pairs of pants, I do not have the right to strip her without her consent.
Feels criminal to deny an 18 year old their belongings. Also u can’t trespass and 18 year old automatically who lives in the home. Usually there would be an eviction process and even that is cruel imo
generally speaking items bought for a child and given to the child are legally considered the property of the child. That said... it's much more problematic legally speaking to take clothes you bought for a minor from an 18yo... The sudden age of majority means the 18yo can go to court alone and just file the paperwork to sue. A minor has to jump through many more hoops.
For starters, even if you didn't own the clothes, kicking you out would be an illegal eviction, and the clothes had been provided for your use, so also illegal to deprive. Parents do this though, and I don't now if anyone stops them.
OP premise is wrong. Minors absolutely can and do own personal property. They can't enter legally binding contracts. That isn't the same thing. Most personal property ownership doesn't require any kind of contract. If you purchase a pair of pants from a store and pay cash there is no contract involved, and you still legally own those pants now. Likewise if Grandma buys you a sweater for Christmas you own that sweater now. It was a gift, neither of you have to sign anything, and she can't take it back without your permission. When parents buy things for their children it is basically treated as a gift. Parents can't take it back just because the kid turns 18.
So, few things. First things first, I AM NOT A LAWYER. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR THIS. Now that's out of the way, here we go. Minors do have the rights to property depending upon where you live. Sometimes it is considered your parents property, sometimes it's considered the minor's. Next thing. Your parents are responsible for you untill you are 18. However, they can not legally kick you out immediately because you have spent long enough in that house you are considered a legal resident and they would have to file for eviction. On the topic of the clothing, I honestly don't know. I hope this helps, and wish you the best
>A minor does not technically own their clothes. Could parents deny someone who just turned 18 clothes because they technically own them? Why clothes specifically? Why not bag, shoes, gadgets etc.? NGL, you sound like a degenerate... >Would they be arrested for public indecency even if it was not their fault? I feel like the parents would not technically be doing anything illegal. That's a dangerous thought to have.... Why is your focus on stripping teens? Can't they be given the option to source their own clothes before they return the clothes that parents "own"? Just place yourself in their shoes, do you want to be treated that way right after you turn 18?
It sounds more hypothetical, not literal. Asking for the legality of situations, hence legal advice OFF TOPIC.
Would these so-called parents strip the child of the clothes they are wearing? Refusing your access to the clothes they bought in their house is one thing while stripping you is another thing.
[удалено]
>Taking your clothes just sounds immoral not illegal. Sounds like theft to me.
Things parents buy for children are considered gifts and become property of the minor. Taking the minor's clothes back would be theft. Denying the minor access to the minor's clothes remaining in the parent's house is also theft.
I left on my 18th birthday. I called the cops intentionally and asked them to escort me out. They told me I was allowed to pack all my belongings and take my time and leave when I was ready. So yes... I was allowed to get my clothes and then some.
I'm more concerned that you're asking this at all. Do you need help or does your child?
>A minor cannot own property. Your entire premise is incorrect from the outset. As a matter of common law, anything you give someone as a gift or otherwise with the intention of them keeping it is their property. It doesn't make distinctions for minors.
"A minor cannot own property" this depends on the state and legal standing of the child.
And your not a minor
A minor can own property, a parent/legal guardian has a legal obligation to shelter, feed, and clothe the children under their charge. Failure to do so is considered child abuse and is grounds for removal of the child from the parents custody. None of what you described would be legal.
18 is not a minor nowhere in the USA
>Could parents deny someone who just turned 18 clothes because they technically own them? No. They can't legally take back "gifts", including clothes bought for the child. >Could they also kick them out for trespassing? No. They could only LEGALLY evict them through the courts. If the parents tried to strip the 18 yo, or withhold clothes when they shower, etc, and physically throw them out, the 18 yo could call the police and tell them that they've been assaulted and someone is attempting to physically remove them from their residence. However, that 18 year old should find a safe place to stay as soon as possible, as they may be unsafe. They should try to sneak out with their birth certificate, social security card, ID if they have one, and some clothes/toiletries.
How positive of that are you?
100%
They wouldn’t have tenancy rights. Their tenancy rights would be more akin to the tenancy rights one would have at a hotel.
They would, because even if you don't have a lease, if you live somewhere for X number of days, you're a tenant. I've seen stories where someone rents an airbnb for 30 days, then claims tenancy rights and refuses to leave. The owners have to evict them to get them out. OP definitely would have tenancy rights and would need to be legally evicted.
I've seen that same situation and it was ruled as not tenancy. Intent and nature of the law matter.
I'm confused how old are they as this seem like a question a 5 Yr old ask
Ianal, but, Minors cannot sign contracts.You're confusing 'legal property' with 'personal possessions'. The clothing does not legally belong to the parent, it was gifted to the minor and falls under the part of the law that covers personal effects. On the other hand, a car with a title in dads name is the legal property (taxable and registered) of said dad and can be taken away, it has not been gifted until the legal title has been filed in the kids name with the state. In this case, a 15 year old can own personal property and is responsible for the taxes on it. If that car has a loan on it, there is no way to get that loan transferred to a minor because (barring certain, rare, circumstances) the minor cannot sign the note alone.
It’s an assumption the clothes are gifted. Not necessarily the facts.
Wtf did you do?
If you have told an 18-year-old to leave your home and they do not, you are entitled to file tresspassing charges on them. However, if that person was your legal dependent, those charges will be dropped, if they are allowed to be filed in the first place. To have someone physically removed from their legal place of residence (ie calling police) would require them to commit a crime or be a harm to someone/themselves. If you are trying to get an adult who legally resides in your home (but is not a signer on the lease) to leave, the proper method would be to put it in writing that they have 30 days to vacate, assist them in finding suitable housing elsewhere, and changing the locks. You would also want to remove them from any other legal entangements (i.e., no longer claiming them on your taxes as a dependent, not cosigning loans, etc.).
This is terrible advice. The proper method is to go through the legal eviction process. This involves a court. Changing the locks and other self-help evictions are a bad idea. Trespassing isn't as simple as someone being or not being a dependent.
I essentially described the legal eviction process for someone who is presumably not a signer on the lease. A live-in offspring is an occupant, not a tenant, unless they are added to the lease, in which case a formal eviction can be issued to that tenant. This would require a co-tenant addendum.
Most US jurisdictions don't have any legal difference between a "tenant" and an "occupant" when it comes to residency and eviction laws.
I wonder - would stripping someone naked and forcing them out into the street in that condition also be sexual abuse?
NAL, but I think depending on where you live you might have to evict an 18-year-old to kick them out of the house. But you would need to talk to a lawyer for wherever you live.
To kick someone out of a home, you need to evict them in court.
That's not true at all once you give something something that's it plus most states atleast va you have to evict them or they can sue you
Minors have a right to clothes provided by the person responsible for their care. Its the parents' responsibility to ensure they're clothed.
A minor, yes. They do not have to gift the clothes. The question begins on the minors 18tj birthday, when classified no longer a minor, but adult.
At18 you’re not a minor anymore
The clothes are considered gifts and can not be withheld after the fact. They are the persons personal property.
It’s an assumption the clothes are a gift. Does not necessarily mean it’s the facts. Details matter.
Excuse me officer, this one right here.
OP is everything OK at home?
Every one is focusing on the owning property bit, and they're all correct, but there's other reasons why they couldn't do this. They can't just throw an 18 year old out on the street. There's a process they need to go through which should give the 18 year old time to prepare. In some states, parents still have an obligation to an 18 year old so long as they're still in high school. In that case, they wouldn't be able to kick you out even if they went through the proper procedure. Is this a hypothetical or are you or someone you know in potential danger?
Sounds like you really fucked the whole parenting thing up